52 F.4th 372
8th Cir.2022Background:
- PWSD is a USDA‑indebted public water district (loans received; one outstanding) that serves a defined service area in Greene County, Missouri.
- The City of Springfield (City Utilities) provided water service to six subdivisions within PWSD’s service area (platted between 1971 and 1994); City began serving each subdivision by or before 1994.
- PWSD sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the City’s service violated 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), which protects USDA‑financed water associations from municipal curtailment or competition.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, reasoning § 1926(b) protects against only the statute’s two enumerated forms of curtailment and the City had not used those methods; the court did not reach the City’s statute‑of‑limitations defense.
- PWSD’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment was denied; on appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed but based its decision on the statute of limitations, holding PWSD’s claims accrued when the City first began serving the subdivisions (not a continuing violation).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 1926(b) protection | §1926(b) broadly bars municipal competition in any form (not limited to annexation/franchise) | §1926(b) only prohibits the two enumerated forms of curtailment (inclusion within municipal boundaries or granting a private franchise) | Court did not decide merits; affirmed on alternate ground (time‑bar) but noted district court’s narrower reading was reasonable |
| Accrual / continuing‑violations for §1983 claim | Claims are timely under continuing‑violations doctrine because City still provides service to subdivisions | Accrual occurred when City initially began serving each subdivision; continued service is inertial consequence and does not reset limitations period | Accrual when City first provided service (by or before 1994); no continuing violation; five‑year Missouri limitations period bars the suit |
| Choice of law on accrual | Apply Missouri continuing‑violations statute (§516.100) to toll limitations | Federal law controls accrual for §1983 claims; federal continuing‑violation principles apply | Federal accrual law governs; Missouri provision not applied |
| Rule 59(e) — new arguments / waiver | District court should consider PWSD’s supplemental arguments that City’s service equates to inclusion or an implied franchise | Arguments were raised first in Rule 59(e) and were waived; alternatively meritless | Denial of Rule 59(e) affirmed (district court did not abuse discretion); appeal affirmed on statute‑of‑limitations ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 3 v. City of Lebanon, 605 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2010) (§1926(b) prevents a city from initially taking customers served by a rural district, not passive continuation of service)
- Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Public Facility Bd., 891 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes discrete acts from continuing violations; recurring effects may be inertial consequences)
- Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 558 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2009) (describes continuing‑violations doctrine and when each overt act restarts limitations)
- Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1980) (accrual occurs when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action; discrete acts accrue immediately)
- Rassier v. Sanner, 996 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2021) (federal law controls accrual of §1983 claims)
- LaCurtis v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 856 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standard: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)